No abstract

Philippine English and Singapore English are legitimate varieties of Southeast Asian English and indeed affirm the pluralism of English. This paper examines selected linguistic features of these two varieties of English as reflected in complaint letters to editors of newspapers. The linguistic properties examined include grammatical and lexical features such as personal reference pronouns, modal verbs, and attitudinal/evaluative adjectives; a syntactic feature in terms of the passive; speech act verbs in terms of illocutionary force indicating devices (IFIDs) and affect indicating phrases (AIPs); and commonly recurring phrases.

Language attitudes have been the focus of interest in sociolinguistics for

This Element offers a critical review of forensic linguistic studies in the Philippines. The studies within, collected over a period of eight to nine years, reveal relevant themes from texts in courtroom proceedings, legal writings, and police investigations. The studies also delve into issues of language choice and language policy. The Element begins with a description of language policy in the Philippines, focusing specifically on language in the legal domain. The main body of the Element is the critical review of Philippine forensic linguistics studies. This critical review takes a sociolinguistic stance, in that issues of language and law are discussed from the lens of social meanings and social practice. From this critical review of forensic linguistics studies, the authors hope to chart future directions for forensic linguistic studies and research in the Philippines.

Higher education institutions consider research as one of their trifocal functions. With the change in the educational landscape, Philippine universities have found a way to address this demand. One move is to create research centers that help develop a research culture among the faculty. Those interested in research apply for research units to reduce their teaching load. It is then expected that faculty researchers can balance their time between teaching and research. To hold them accountable for their deliverables by the end of the academic year, they get into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which they and the research center directors sign before the beginning of the academic year. This paper examines the legal value of the contract signed by the researchers and the directors of four research centers in one comprehensive university in Manila, as well as the provisions observed and not observed in the contract. Findings revealed that the contract signed is valid since it contains the following requisites: a.) cause, b.) object, and c.) consent. These requisites are found in the three moves identified. With regard to the linguistic features, only two out of the nine were found, based on the framework of Crandall and Charrow (1990). These were: a.) overly complex sentences and b.) negation. Violations of some provisions were found to be committed by faculty researchers, and while sanctions are stipulated in the agreement for non-compliance, not all are being implemented. Gaps were likewise noted in the preparation of the MOA. It is recommended that the provisions in the contract be reviewed and checked against the provisions and guidelines in research revised by the Office for Research. A review of the research management strategies of the university is likewise recommended. Finally, as a contract, the MOA may still be further improved by addressing the gaps in the content so that effectiveness can be attained to avoid future litigation.